Other+Assignments


 * Discussion Forum Response on Language and Society**

“How does language affect society and the individual?" - The question overwhelms me. Its implications and possible answers seem to be endless. It's a question without beginning or end. "//Psychologically our thought- apart from its expression in words- is only a shapeless and indistinct mass. Philosophers and linguists have always agreed in recognizing that without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut, consistent distinction between two ideas. Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula. There are no pre-existing ideas, and nothing is distinct before the appearance of language//." (Ferdinand de Saussure, //Sign, Signified, Signifier//, 1911)

In thinking about the ways that language affects society and the individual it becomes apparent to me that the primary function of language is to make possible and create a communal situation in which the individual may position itself in relation to others; to make sense of its own being and to make significant its actions and thoughts. Language is the very foundation of meaningful interaction and therefore the very foundation of society. To make a distinction between the two (language and society) is to make an abstract and arbitrary division; to borrow an analogy from de Saussure- it would be like trying to cut the front of a sheet of paper without cutting the back (de Saussure, 1911).

Without language our thoughts are formless and indistinct; and so society, without a language system, is an impossibility- in both conception and practical reality. The individual remains isolated and shapeless without a system of communication, lost in that 'uncharted nebula'. "//It is the social part of language, the individual cannot by himself either create or modify it; it is essentially a collective contract which one must accept in its entirety if one wishes to communicate. Moreover, this social product is autonomous, like a game with its own rules, for it can handled only after a period of learning.//" (Roland Barthes, //Semiological Prospects,// 1964)

The power of language to create our sense of self and our relations is unrivaled. Nothing else has such tremendous capacity to fix the reaches of our cumulative efforts, goals and state of being. Any single individual is, in a sense, only able to choose from among socially accepted possibilities when constructing his character, at least so far as he wishes to interact. This extends to the socially accepted possibilities of identity including gender, ethnicity and class. Can one be "middle class" if one has no term for the social standing? He can only be "middle class" in the sense that one has told him that is where he stands, in the sense that he understands what he is being told, and in the sense that he accepts the term and its application to his self. Even the color of skin might only become socially significant when we affix meaning, whether positive or negative, to the physical state of difference. In the positive sense this allows an individual to choose from among a set of options in constructing his own identity- one is able to conceive of himself as not only a person but a particular kind of person, capable of his own thoughts and abilities. In the negative sense it also allows, and might possibly create, the potential for discrimination in that it gives groups the ability to assign roles to individuals and thus negating all other options.

If we extend Barthes' metaphor of language as a game complete with its own set of rules- then the influence of language actually extends beyond the game itself; it is also the field, board, or arena, and it is the goals, points or score and is even the players so far as they become actuated in the dynamics of competition, or interaction and engagement. Language becomes the very fabric of society and determines its actual structure as it is the framework upon and around which all else is possible. The limits of our language become the limits of our potential and constrains the possibility of achievement in our communal efforts. As Jurgen Habermas points out- "...//the particular structure of potential speech is the basic linguistic framework, which also determines the scope and structure of corresponding world view.//" (Habermas, //Social Analysis and Communicative Competence//, 1970) We can only create and exist in the society which we can name, label and describe. The boundaries and limits of society extend only so far as our vocabularies. Beyond that lies unexplored territory. The implications for education are all encompassing- by teaching language we impart both the tools and material for creating and maintaining society. Education dictates the future possibilities of a community in that it gives students all the potential language system entails. In some respects, this can be as much of a detriment to the student as a gift; he not only receives the benefits of language and communication but also the frustrations of its limitations. If students are not given a full mastery of their language, this literally limits the scope of their possible view of the world. Or put another way- ".//..the study of formal properties of language reveals something of the nature of humans in a negative way: it underscores, with great clarity, the limits of our understanding of those qualities of mind that are apparently unique to humans and that must enter into their cultural achievements in an intimate, if still quite obscure, manner.//" (Chomsky, //Language and Freedom,// 1970) I have heard it related that when Spanish explorers arrived on the North American coast natives, having never encountered ships of that size and shape before, and thus without words for them, were unable to even see the ships; only through observing the rippling waters were they able to deduce their presence. Whether or not this is true, and frankly I doubt that it is, is not important- the story nonetheless remains a rich metaphor for the restrictions of language and its impact on our perceptions, and says something about the mythic importance we bestow upon it. Humans are only capable of recognizing (and ultimately engaging with) those things which they encounter when they are able to make sense of them using the linguistic framework which organizes and makes possible their thoughts. If something is so foreign so as to be beyond the scope of our agreed upon language we have the choice to either ignore it or name it. Society then is the product of identifiable and recognized phenomenon and our social identities (those linguistically distinguished roles and stations we either take on or are saddled with) are either the product of inherited or modified concepts and ideas language has previously identified. Or as de Saussure claims ".//..language always appears as a heritage of the preceding period....A particular language-state is always the product of historical forces...//" (de Saussure, 1911)

Stuart Hall goes further- "//National cultures are composed not only of cultural institutions, but of symbols and representations. A national culture is a discourse- a way of constructing meanings which influences and organizes both our actions and our conceptions of ourselves.//" (Stuart Hall, //The Global, the Local, and the Return of Ethnicity//, 1996) "//National identity is an 'imagined community//'" (Hall, 1996)

Stuart Hall is discussing the larger scale of nations and states but the concept is easily related to even local communities; this 'imagined community' that we live in is the externalization of the possibilities language provides. Our everyday lives are shaped by the way we are able to think about them and by the way we are able to talk about them with one another; and ultimately share in a common perception of something which ceases to exist the moment we stop actively participating in it. If the imagination is only distinct when filtered through language then the only possible community is one with applicable terms for it, and one that actively utilizes that language. Education then becomes the most obvious foundation of future societal continuation and possibility. Formal education takes the use of language beyond the basics learned in the home, giving it a purpose beyond the satisfying of basic needs and to give the individual a greater mastery of the language and so a greater potential for interaction on a broader scale- "//What is an education system after all, if not a ritualisation of the word; if not a qualification of some fixing of roles for speakers; if not the constitution of a (diffuse) doctrinal group; if not a distribution and an appropriation of discourse, with all its learning and its powers?//" (Michel Foucault, //Discourse on the West//, 1971) Education, and its dissemination of language, defines the roles the individual is capable of inhabiting and actively creates the meaning of their interaction. It is this reason that political forces sometimes feel threatened by the education of the historically underprivileged- literacy is a means to fully realize ones potential (within the inherent limits, of course). Intentional roadblocks to education and literacy are a particularly effective means of repression exactly because it is the very means of actualization. History is filled with the accounts of deliberate deprivation of oppressed peoples starting with an effort to ensure a lack of access to education and literacy. Without the resource of language and literacy individuals and communities remain unable to act. We can only meet our needs as sufficiently as we are able to articulate them. We can only solve the problems we are able to identify and give life to the solutions we are capable of, if not communicating, at least thinking. We can only create what we can name. And we are only able to confront those injustices we can recognize. Essentially- language becomes a map, which not only details the areas of our currently held understandings and perceptions by outlining their boundaries, but also determines any future destinations by showing us the areas still to be explored.

I don't mean to imply that man is only capable of acting out the scripts already written for him or that language acts as some kind of restraining force within which we all merely fill the roles already decided upon. Somehow these roles were created, so logically we are able to create new, additional roles and meanings for their interaction. I would agree with Noam Chomsky that "//...it is no denial of man's capacity for infinite "self-perfection" to hold that there are intrinsic properties of mind that constrain his development.....in a sense the opposite is true, that without a system of formal constraints there are no creative acts; specifically, in the absence of intrinsic and restrictive properties of mind, there can be only "shaping of behavior" but no creative acts of self-perfection"// (Chomsky, //Language and Freedom,// 1970)

However, perhaps language is precisely this kind of restraining force when it is for the student something not mastered and not fully comprehended. Without the explicit knowledge of language's creative nature, it only acts to constrain the individual- forcing upon him the diminished scope of a meager understanding. The creative aspect of language may only come into play along with sufficient knowledge of those formal constraints. The importance of a full understanding and grasp of the common language, whatever particular language that may be, is nearly equitable with opportunity.

I think of the student learning English as a second language- until some skill or mastery has developed, creative acts are a struggle (in English) and the use of the language operates on a far lower level of simple attempts at expression and understanding.

I once had an English professor who claimed that language was a constant act of pointing in the direction of illumination. At any given time the current limitations of language, and our inevitable dissatisfaction with its frustrations, motivate us to actively stretch the use of that framework to provide a fuller and more complete meaning to ideas by either recombining the existing language system or creating new additions to it. Each generation, he claimed, served to extend our boundaries and grasp a little further but was only able to make it as far as the limitations they were given. Each generation then has a responsibility or opportunity to begin where their predecessors could make it no further and identify those things which we have no name for; to recognize the areas of our language that are obviously lacking and make it possible for subsequent generations to then adapt the language to suit the growing needs of the society by creating new words and systems.

In the end any examination of language is inherently dissatisfying. The only possible means of observing it is by its own utilization. Our view of language is naturally shaped by the limitations of the linguistic tools used to comprehend it, only allowing us to see it in terms already set. How many times have we all had to abandon a topic of conversation because of inadequate vocabulary, for frustration with the lack of words, for a language that just does not fit? This often taking place even within our own minds- the thought is never allowed to fully form for want of better descriptions and identifiers. By examining it though, we illustrate the presence of the gaps in our current understanding and give following generations the means to make their own advancements; in a sense measuring the hole to be filled and making an assessment of the work to be done.